Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:40 AM Mar 2015

"You should vote for and support the best candidate presented in the primary"

"You should probably vote for and support the Democratic Candidate in the General, but it's your vote."

Is this a reasonable stance?

Bryant


1 vote, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Yes that is reasonable; and I accept that some good DUers may pick a different best candidate than I will
1 (100%)
Yes that is reasonable; but the best candidates will be pretty obvious, so I assume good DUers will support that candidate."
0 (0%)
No this isn't reasonable; we need to support the right candidate now if we want to hold onto the white house
0 (0%)
No this isn't reasonable, for reasons I will detail below.
0 (0%)
What isn't reasonable is this bullshit poll.
0 (0%)
I like to vote!
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
1. The first one is a good statement for everyone, regardless of party.
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:47 AM
Mar 2015

Although we don't all get the same ballots in primaries, depending on our registered affiliation. Ohio has party-specific ballots, so as a registered Dem Socialist, I don't get the Democratic Party ballot.

For the second half, I'd merely change the word 'primary to general' and repeat the first statement as being the 'most reasonable' stance.

Why should you want to vote for and support the best candidate in one race, but not in every race?

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
2. Because losing the General election to Republicans has pretty serious consequences
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:49 AM
Mar 2015

There have been times when the Socialist or Green party might well have represented my views better, but not at the cost of allowing Republicans access to the white house (or my districts house seat or senate seat).

Or that's the rationale.

Bryant

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
3. Then wouldn't a more reasonable statement be
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:53 AM
Mar 2015

'Run the best possible candidate as a Democrat'.

That way, people voting for the best possible candidate will vote for them. Democrats will vote for them in the primary, and everyone will vote for them in the general.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
4. The issue with that is that we live in a democracy -
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:56 AM
Mar 2015

While I think that Warren for example would be a great candidate, and I'd really like to support her in the general, other people feel just as passionately that Clinton should be the candidate. One of our candidates will get the nomination; if it's not yours, than at that point your choices are to support the Democratic Candidate in the General or to support a third party candidate.

Bryant

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
9. Another poster just pointed something out.
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 10:25 AM
Mar 2015

While we might 'live in a democracy', the 'primary' is not truly democratic. Because a primary specifically limits who gets to vote. You don't get to vote in a Republican primaries, I don't get to vote in either Democratic or Republican primaries.

If primaries were actually democratic, every person would get to vote in every primary. I'd get to vote for the best Democrat to be on the general ballot AND the best Republican to be on the general ballot. And the best of any other party.

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)
12. OK - fair enough - but that's kind of more of a quibble than an objection
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:05 AM
Mar 2015

And I'm not sure the logic follows that most poeple would vote for the best Republican if they were Democrat or the best Democrat if they were Republican.

Or to put it another way, isn't the best Republican candidate the most easily defeated?

Be that as it may, at some point after the primary process concludes you end up with a candidate who may or may not have been the one you wanted. At that point you have to make a call. Is it worth the risk to vote third party, knowing what a Republican President might do to the court, for example.

Bryant

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
6. That is the entire objective of a Primary. It's democratic, so each person gets one vote, you count
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 10:14 AM
Mar 2015

the them up and the one who has the most votes runs as the nominee. You seem to be suggesting the assignment of a nominee according to your view of who is the best possible instead of the collective view as demonstrated by the election cycle.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
7. No, a primary is not democratic. A general is.
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 10:21 AM
Mar 2015

A primary is a deliberate limiting of who gets to have a vote to those who are in a specific subset of the voting public.

alc

(1,151 posts)
5. how is "best" determined?
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 09:59 AM
Mar 2015

And more important, will my definition of "best candidate" even be allowed in the primary?

As long as I can use my personal definition of "best" I'll vote for the "best" on the primary ballot. But I'll have a much better feeling about the party if the "best" on the ballot is someone I'm excited about. It's easier to rally around the winner if I had options and my choice didn't win.

If my options were reduced before the primary even happened and there were no discussions/debates around the issues I care about then I don't feel represented by the winner and will be falling back the voting for the "lesser of two evils".

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
10. I think people should use their best judgement.
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 10:33 AM
Mar 2015

Different opinions Nd competition is good for the party.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
11. No. Candidates are not entitled to votes. Candidates have to earn votes.
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 10:42 AM
Mar 2015

If the general election candidate can not earn votes on their own, they are not entitled to votes because there is a D after their name.

Just ask Gore. He has repeatedly said 2000 happened because he ran a bad campaign. He has not been screaming "Fucking Nader voters!!!"

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"You should vote for...